Page 4115 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (6.07): The Greens understand the intent of the Liberals. We have looked at this very closely. We understand that it is intended to ensure that new licence applicants are not required to provide information on past offences committed at the venue. The amendment attempts to ensure that a new licence applicant is not tarred by the brush of the previous licensee, all of which I think are very valid points.
However, we are advised by the government—and the attorney has just covered his ground—that this is not the case, that the suitability information will only apply to licence renewals and not licence applications for brand new licences. We believe it is clearly relevant that in a licence renewal these factors are taken into account.
On that basis the Greens will not support the amendments. However, if it does turn out that there are unintended consequences of the act—and this is clearly a debate about interpretation, to some extent—we will certainly be willing to revisit this matter in future. But on the current advice and the current understanding of the law it seems quite clear, so we will not be supporting the amendments.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 89, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 90.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.09): I move amendment No 9 circulated in my name [See schedule 1 at page 4138].
This amendment goes to one of the nonsense provisions I mentioned in my speech in the in-principle debate. When we see the final regulations that attach to this legislation they will outline the matters that must be addressed by a licence or permit holder when preparing a RAMP. Clause 128 of the bill creates an offence if a licensee or permit holder fails to make a RAMP available for public inspection. The information contained in the RAMP includes, for example, whether video surveillance is in use, the number of crowd controllers to be employed, how entries to the premises will be managed, lighting and so on, as outlined in the exposure draft of the regulations.
This kind of information, if made available to the public, may compromise the security of the premises and the safety of patrons. It may even compromise the safety of the public at large. Disclosure of this kind of information does not support the principles of the legislation. Imagine, for example, if someone came in and demanded to see the RAMP for the purpose of working out how many crowd controllers were employed. Perhaps the person was disgruntled because he was asked to leave the premises on a previous occasion because he was considered intoxicated. That person might go away, pull together a group of mates and return to the premises—outnumbering the crowd controllers, trashing the premises, causing damage to the property and injury to people—and then escape before the police could be called to the scene. How does this help harm minimisation or public safety? It simply does not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video